Talk:Name of Canada/Archive 1

Usage of Dominion

Anyone here remember the 1960s? I don't, but I think that "Dominion of Canada" was in use until the 1960s, not just the 1930s as a recent edit indicated. Kevintoronto 19:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dominion was not as widely used in the late 19th century as we might think. Its heyday was in the first half of the 20th century. I think it was probably the government of Louis St. Laurent (1948-57) who began to phase Dominion out. Although Mackenzie King valued Canadian independence, he was a very cautious and wily politician who never stirred up trouble over minor matters. I can recall the late 1950s clearly and Dominion was in use in phrases such as "Dominion Building", "Dominion Elections Act" and "Dominion-Provincial relations". But it was really being used as a synonym for "federal" or "national". The process accelerated under Pearson (1963-68) and Trudeau (1968-) especially after the Official Languages Act when names like Dominion were unworkable in French e.g. the Dominion Bureau of Statistics became Statistics Canada about 1971 (it was Bureau fédéral de la statistique in French). I checked Library and Archives Canada catalogue and cannot see any Dominion-Provincial conference later than 1960. It was in the 1950s too that Royal Mail began to disappear (I vaguely recollect some people being upset). So, I would focus on the tenure of Louis St. Laurent as the beginning of the end for Dominion.--BrentS 22:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As to the statement that the Canada Act 1982 did not contain the word "Dominion", this is hardly surprising as it was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Constitution Act 1982 (all eleven of them) contains the word Dominion; the act of 1867 contains the word "Dominion" four times only, right at the beginning of the act. See the article on dominion. I suspect there is more history to this word than we know. Has anyone consulted the standard constitutional textbooks by Peter Hogg, Bora Laskin and Eugene Forsey to see what they have to say about the word "dominion" if anything?--BrentS 22:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article says "While the Canada Act 1982 does not use the term Dominion, neither does it amend the earlier usage". I had added " — though if the earlier usage of "Dominion" were not the official name, there would be no reason to amend it". Perhaps such wording needs to be improved, but if mention is made of not amending the name without such comment, it leaves the impression that the name was never officially changed. However, no evidence has ever been presented that the name was ever "DoC" --JimWae 03:40, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

---

Jim:

Hi there! Yes: your prior comment--which I removed--was unncessarily (and uncharacteristically) argumentative. A reference in the constitution which notes 'Dominion of Canada' can be found at:

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/const/endnts_e.html#(4) - (47), (2)

et al.

There is also a volume entitled 'The Oxford Companion to Canadian History' by Gerald Ed. Hallowell (Hardcover - June 2004) which summarises this discussion and reiterates what is required to officially 'change' the country's name.

Moreover, this section is quite clear about the status of the name. Note: I'm not challenging the predominance of which name is in common use, but to accurately provide a historical context and information regarding usage. Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 04:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the relevant section supposed to be 47-2? I see the usage of "Dominion of Canada" there, but nothing there that says what the name is -- though there is plenty elsewhere that plainly says the name is "Canada"--JimWae 04:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

---

Jim:

Hello. Yes, 47-2 with a number of indications below that. Quid pro quo. And you can consult the paper volume I cited. I am not going to regurgitate the apparently unending debate about what the official longform name is, as the section in this subarticle says it clearly. Obviously, I do not dispute citations about usage of 'Canada,' but you also seem to imply that usage of 'Dominion of Canada,' particularly in such a document (not to mention historical usage) is somehow illegitimate ... which is incorrect.

Remember: I'm not challenging what the name is and was and the prevailing reasons, but summarising de jure AND de facto information regarding usage. That's it. Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 04:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not at all what I am saying. The constitution acts say the name is "Canada" and never say the NAME is "Dominion of Canada" but do say "the Dominion named Canada".--JimWae 07:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

---

Jim:

Hello again! I understand and agree. Also consider the fact, though, that the Canadian constitution is comprised of written text AND unwritten conventions and practices, and the inference of Dominion in the country's name (implicit or explicit) has some support--though obviously waning--up to present day. We can both argue what the official name is until we're blue in the face (and I won't do so hereafter) and I'm not arguing that you're at all incorrect, but that doesn't erase its historical (written (as in the previous citation), oral, what have you) usage.

Enough said. :)

E Pluribus Anthony 11:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really enough said. As I said, including mention that the name was never amended implies it was at one time officially something different - which it very clearly never was. "Dominion of Canada" was an unofficial stylized name --JimWae 21:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

---

Jim:

Hello! I don't disagree; you will note, though, that section of the article indicates the Dominion of Canada as being 'official' (single quotes to appease hardliners). Moreover, it says "the Canada Act 1982 ... does not amend the earlier usage"; this earlier usage need not be limited to written constitutional texts where Canads's name is authoritatively listed (also comprised of unwritten conventions) but can also include historical usage as indicated: written or not, official or otherwise. And there is the Oxford reference I noted, as well, which elaborates, et al.

Truly enough said. :)

E Pluribus Anthony 02:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why Canadian?

Can anyone explain why the adjective is Canadian rather than Canadan? rossb 12:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't understand the question -- Canadians come from Canadia. ;-) Ground Zero 13:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably just imitation of the french name. It was "canadien" ever since the begining so when the "united empire loyalist" arrived and later start adopting the name, they simply "ajusted" it.

As to why the french used the "i", its just part of the language, like "floridien". --Marc pasquin 01:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

A lot of Australians like to call Canada "Canadia"(second a long). I don't know if this is the case in Australia. But it certainly is among australians in London. I suppose this is because it makes a better analogy with Australia being the home of Australians.

HieronymusBosch don't start an edit war

HieronymusBosch,

Go look up Feudalism, and Feudal Ranks yourself. I am not here to educate you. If you persist in interfering with my contribution, you had better have done your research on Feudalism, and Feudal Law by the time this goes to arbitartion. Don't go off half cocked.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon, you're making the claim so its you who needs to provide the evidence. This is not "your" article, you cannot just put in anything that pops into your head or that you think might be true but can't prove. I would suggest that you answer HieronymuBosch's question. Homey 01:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No. I am not making a claim, I am stating knowledge. If you doubt it, you go look it up yourself, HOTR. By the way, how did you get into this? ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"If you doubt it, you go look it up yourself"

I have. I can't find any evidence that what you say is true. Can you? If not, I'm afraid the claim has to go. Homey 02:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Look futher, your say so "about looking" is not good enough. Back off, or go to arbitartion. Your choice.

I have purchased (they ain't cheap) "the Kingdom Papers" Volumes 1 and 2, and in it have carefully catelogues the discussion at the Quebec Conference on the wording of the Canadian Constitution (the British North America Act 1867), and the discussion of the Union's Feudal Rank (pp. 372-393).

References:

(1). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume I., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 331, (1912-1917).

(2). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume II., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 393, (1912-1917). ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Don, you're acting as if you have an enormous sense of entitlement. You do not have a right to add whatever you want to articles and then refuse to substantiate the material you are adding. As I said, this is not your article, it's community property. If you can't accept that you'll never be able to get along as an editor. Homey 02:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

HOTR, you do not have the power to summarily remove contributions from articles "just because you looked and you couldn't find something". Don't waste my time. Either do some thorough research, or get off your harrassment of me. ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"HOTR, you do not have the power to summarily remove contributions from articles "just because you looked and you couldn't find something"."

a) I haven't edited this article and thus haven't removed anything.

b) You're wrong, all editors have "the power to summarily remove contributions from articles" if the contributing editor refuses to substantiate his claims. See Wikipedia:No original research.

I suggest that, in future, if someone asks you to cite your sources you do so politely rather than respond with a lot of attitude and as if no one has the right to question you. Homey 02:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No. This is not original research. The reference is cited below. The summary deletion of this contribution by you would be vandalism (Ref. (2), pp.372-393, as per "Rank and Name" pp.374-381. Ref. (2))..

References:

(1). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume I., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 331, (1912-1917).

(2). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume II., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 393, (1912-1917). ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said, you should have politely provided the evidence when HieronymusBosch asked rather than give an arrogant and rude response. Next time drop the attitude. Homey 02:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"One Dominion under the Name of Canada," or "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada"

This is very odd. The phrase,

"One Dominion under the Name of Canada," or "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada"

something is very very odd. The French text "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada" translates as "a single, and same Power under the name of Canada." This could be a result of the divergence of "Quebec French" from "France French".

Something is really really wrong here.

http://www.canadiana.org/citm/_textpopups/constitution/doc102_e.html

The BNA Act 1867. Preamble (In Quebec French).

http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/PageView/92338/0005?id=9ed8f7ef26640db0

Considerant que les provinces du Canada, de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, de la Nouveux-Brunswick, on exprime le desire de contracter une union federale pour ne former qu'une seule, et meme Puissance (Dominion) sous la Courounne de la royaume-uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irelande avec une constitution reposant sur le meme principes que le royaume uni:

I am going to look into this. THERE IS A STORY HERE!!! ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not a case of divergeance between European and Quebec french standard, the word dominion is simply not use in french unless talking about Canada in an historical context. In any other cases (I have dominion over the land, This shall be my dominion, etc....), francophones would use different sentence contruction. --Marc pasquin 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

BrentS: My French Translations are highly suspect?

BrentS wrote,

English versus French meanings of the Dominion of Canada - French translations highly suspect - royaume is masculine, Unione??. THREE colonies united in 1867 to form FOUR provinces. Countries cede

Royaume du France is masculine? I thought France was feminine? Whereas Germany is masculine (the Fatherland). So if it is "le" instead of "la", how does this make my translation suspect? ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is my understanding: Royaume is masculine, and France is feminine, so La France, but le Royaume de France. Same for Quebec: "Vive le Quebec libre", but "la belle province de Quebec" because province is feminine. Ground Zero | t 13:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct.--Marc pasquin 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with the accuracy of your translation than with its necessity. Also, your comment about dominion in French is wrong, it exists in French only as a loan word. Homey 12:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The French translation is accurate, and neccesary, and it is going back in. HOTR, you speak English and German, but you don't know that much about French. If you want to argue French with me, you are in for a trouching, indeed. The word "Dominion" is not a loan word, it exists in French, as the same word.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Could you please explain why you think the translations of UK and Kingdom of France are necessary?

They are relavent.

Le Royaume du Canada, that would be acceptable because le Royaume de la France, and le Royaume de la Grande-Bretagne fits the terminology. The French language makes that very clear.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

2.As far as whether dominion is a loan word or not, I tried a couple of on-line dictionairies accessible from here:

The dictionnaire Littré (1872) [1]

DOMINION (entrée créée par le supplément)

(do-mi-ni-on) s. m.

Nom donné par les Anglais aux pays qui constituent le Canada.

La population de la confédération canadienne appelée par les natifs du nom de Dominion ou Puissance, s'élève donc à 3507475 habitants, Journ. offic. 8 sept. 1872, p. 5910, 3e col.

The dictionnaire de l'Académie française (1935) & dernière édition incomplète [2]

Il n'y a aucun mot-vedette qui s'apparie exactement avec la forme demandée.

Vous effectuez une recherche par appariement de forme exacte. Dans ce type de recherche, les opérateurs logiques ainsi que les caractères joker sont interdis. Les accents sont ignorés dans les recherches simples par mot-vedette. L'orthographe de certains mots peut changer en fonction de la date d'édition du dictionnaire. Les mots-vedette de cette collection de dictionnaires sont typiquement présentés par la racine et au masculin.

Tentative de recherche par similitude pour dominion sur tous les mots-vedette de tous les dictionnaires (constraint = 2) Vous êtes sûr de ces mots?: domination domino opinion

While the dictionnaire Littré includes the word, it seems pretty clear to me that itis as a loan word. The dictionnaire de l'Académie française does not include the word at all. There may well be, however, other dictionaries that I did not find. Ground Zero | t 14:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Loan Word? Dominion? Rubbish. The word Dominion was first used in the English Language to define the Union of British North America. Kingdom of Canada was the original term. Dominion is BOTH a French and English word.

http://atilf.atilf.fr/Dendien/scripts/generic/cherche.exe?22;s=501415680;;

1)*DOMINION n. m. XIXe siècle. Mot anglais Dominion (XIXe siècle, pour désigner le Canada), emploi spécialisé de dominion, « puissance, domination, possession », puis « domaine placé sous l'autorité du seigneur », d'origine française.

Nom donné avant 1931 à des États qui, après avoir été des colonies britanniques, étaient devenus autonomes sous la suzeraineté de la Couronne britannique ; nom donné après cette date à ceux de ces États qui, devenus indépendants, se sont associés librement dans une communauté de nations, le Commonwealth, et reconnaissent la même suzeraineté.

The definition below,

puis « domaine placé sous l'autorité du seigneur », d'origine française.

Translates as

and "a Domain placed under the authorite of a Sovereign," of French origin.

The usage of Dominion (with reference to a Nation-State) in BOTH the English and French langauges began in 1867. Thus it is not a loan word. ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

" HOTR, you speak English and German"

That's news to me. Homey 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

HOTR,

The French translations le Royaume de la France, and le Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne are there to show the similarities in language. The Kingdom of France was an Absolute Monarchy, however the United Kingdom of Great Britain is a Constitutional-Monarchy. The arbitary removal of those terms is vandalism, committed by you.

If you wise to go the ArbComm about my French Translation, be my guess. Do not remove them again.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

AVD, we don't go to the Arbcomm over every little thing, certainly not over something like this, and I doubt they'd have any interest in hearing it so please stop saying "take me to the ArbComm" whenever someone disagrees with you. If you'd like a mediator to look at the question we can do that but it's pretty clear, I think, that the consensus is against you on this. Homey 23:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

HOTR,

My translations are going back in. They are relavent.

Le Royaume du Canada, that would be acceptable because le Royaume de la France, and le Royaume de la Grande-Bretagne fits the terminology. The French language makes that very clear.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Reference to the word "Dominion", and its French counterpart

As per the quoted text in the main article on Canada's name,

The term "dominion," as well as Canada's motto, are commonly attributed to Psalms 72:8 and Zechariah 9:10 of the Bible: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."

French Bible on-line http://www.info-bible.org/lsg/INDEX.html

Psaume 72.8

Il dominera d'une mer à l'autre, Et du fleuve aux extrémités de la terre.

Zacharie 9.10

Je détruirai les chars d'Éphraïm, Et les chevaux de Jérusalem; Et les arcs de guerre seront anéantis. Il annoncera la paix aux nations, Et il dominera d'une mer à l'autre, Depuis le fleuve jusqu'aux extrémités de la terre.

Thus, in the English text, the word "dominion" is used, and in the French text, the word "dominera" is used. The English usage of the word dominion means to dominate, to have the authority to rule. The French translation of "dominera" is to dominate, to have power over, or equally to have dominion.

Words to consider (a "domain" is something one rules, and to be "dominant" is to lead or rule),

English, French

Domain, Domaine

Dominant, Dominant,

Domination, Domination,

Dominion, Dominion.

The first use of the word "Dominion" in both English and French (as per a Nation-State), with regard to the name of this country was in 1867, as "the Dominion of Canada", or in French as "le Dominion du Canada."

The true reason for the use of the French word "Puissance" in the 1868 translation of the British North America Act 1867, has not been fully elucidated, as it was not neccesary to choose another word in French. There is more to this story, but I do not know what it is ... yet. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again you are reading words that aren't there. The French bible references you cite do not use the noun dominion, as in la Dominion du Caanda. They use the third person future formation of the verb dominer. Dominera does not translate as "dominion", but as "will dominate". But I don't see this argument going anywhere.

As far providing French translations for UK and Kingdom of France, you have not convinced me that they are in anyway relevant. The decision on "Kingdom of Canada" was made, according to various history books, on the basis that it would offend the Americans, and that the Colonial Office in London thought that it was too grand for a colony. I have not seen any discussion anywhere but here about whether it was "acceptable" in French or not.

Finally, your repeated cries of "take me to ArbCom if you disagree" are tiresome, miss the point of ArbCom, and are contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and Wikiquette. Please try to conduct yourself in a more co-operative manner instead of "going nuclear" at the slightest provocation. Ground Zero | t 13:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Feudal rank

Regarding Homey's deletion, the concept of "feudal rank" as outlined by AVD does seem to be legitimate (see here), but it is does not seem to be at all relevant to an article on Canada's name. I do not think that the lengthy discussion of feudal rank, and especially the references to emperors, counts, dukes, barons, etc., is appropriate here. There was no discussion, as far as I have heard, of Calling canada an empire or a county or a duchy. The discussion was "kingdom" or "dominion", and the decision was based on the expected reaction of the Americans, and the sentiment in the Colonial Office that the canadians were getting too big for their britches. I think that, in addition to removing the translations of UK and Kingdom of France, we can remove the latin origins of kingdom and so on. this sort of info may be relevant in an article on feudal rank, but is fair too detailed for this article. We should not pile in all sorts of background information in order to support some argument or other that ends up being original research. Ground Zero | t 20:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Go research Feudalism yourself, HOTR.

Keep up the harrassment, and I'll dump the whole page.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the extra stuff that is not directly relevant to the selection of the name of Canada. I have linked to feudal rank where much of that information belongs. Ground Zero | t 23:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, I have put it back in. It is very relavent material. The sentences that I have kept re-instating are not excessive in length, or an undue burden to Wikipedia's bandwidth. Their presense makes the whole story crystal clear to anyone that would read it. The information is factual, correct, and very compact. The sentences present all the relavent information in a very succinct, yet illustrative vein-of-thought. Their repeated deleting by you (and others) is not warranted (unless you folks thrive on petty vindictiveness). Please let this go, and let these few sentences stand. They really improve the article, in informativeness, and scope.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is it, Don, that everyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant, stupid, petty and/or vindictive? I have encountered few people on Wikipedia who meet those criteria. Please accept that other editors have their own views on what should or should not go into articles, and that they hold those views on the basis of what they believe makes a good article. Please review and take seriously the Wikipedia commentary on assuming good faith. I deleted because I really, really think that it is not appropriate for the article. In my opinion, you put in way too much detail that confused the issue and cluttered the article with stuff that was not relevant. I did not delete it because I am petty or vindictive. Explaining that an Earl presides over an earldom, or whatever it was, does not help explain how Canada came to be called a dominion. Please do not make personal attacks against people just because they do not have the same opinions as you. And you should review that Wikipedia policy while you're at it. Ground Zero | t 22:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, my material was relavent. It set the framework for the complete scale of Feudal Ranks of Domains, and their Rulers. It placed the Dominion of Canada in the proper context, to show its Feudal Rank. As well, it illustrated that we actually have one (something that you, and other editors ignore). Frankly, most of the Canadian Editors here are very un-informed about our British Commonwealth heritage, yourself included.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked one insult from your catalogue. Let me clarify: Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant, stupid, petty, vindictive and/or uninformed? Have a rainbow day, Don. Ground Zero | t 23:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, yes you are either un-informed or you ignore the value of the posted material. The Dominion of Canada was the long form offical name chosen by this country, at it founding on July 1, 1867 (i.e., our first Dominion Day). The word Dominion is also a Feudal Rank, equal to Kingdom, Realm, and Union. These are all facts, yet you ignore their value in being included in the article.

So what does that make you then? Un-informed, or ignorant? ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No. <sigh> I just disagree with you about the value of cluttering the article with this stuuff, because, like most people, I don't share your quaint obsession with monarchy, feudalism, and out-of-date terminology. Have you ever considered the possibility that it's not that the rest of us here are difficult to get along with, but that maybe it's you who is difficult to get along with? Ground Zero | t 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero,

What is the topic of this articles talkpage? Canada's name.

Now, this extra article (Canada's name) was created because of people (like me) who wanted the Dominion of Canada put in the first sentence of the main Canada article.

We all know that the "enlightened majority" here at Wikipedia would not have the Dominion of Canada put in. So hence this page. Next up, the contested source of the Dominion of Canada required the discussion of quaint terms like monarchy, feudalism, and "out-of-date" terminology.

I could go on the make a snide comment about "your lack of enthusiasm" about the origin of Canada's long form offical name, but I won't. I'll try a simple analogy, how can one talk about Football, without using words like Tackle, Touchdown, N-Zone, Interception (i.e., the sports terminology relavent to Football)?

Anyways, if you're not interesting the discussing the topic at hand with the neccessary terminology, hey that is fine by me. ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Now, this extra article (Canada's name) was created because of people (like me) who wanted the Dominion of Canada put in the first sentence of the main Canada article."

Actually, this article was created by User:Kevintoronto who is now known as Ground Zero. Homey 04:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So you made a snide remark about the "enlightened majority" instead. I guess you just can't accept that you are part of a community here, and that the community does not accept eveything you put down. Well, too bad. That is how Wikipedia works. Your inability to convince other editors of your view on various issues does not mean that they are uninformed. It means that you have been unable to convince them becuase your arguments are frequently unsubstantiated, they frequently go off on unrelated tangents, and there is too much evidence on the other side. I gave up on following most of the sources you provide because they are usually wild goose chases. There is lots of information about feudal rank in the Nobility article, to which I linked this article for your benefit. It should not be here because there is no evidence that the Fathers of Confederation and the Colonial Office had extended discussions about it.

If we were talking about football, we would link to the appropriate terminology, not provide lengthy definitions of each term. Canyou imagine a game commentator explaining what a tackle is when one is made? Or a explaining what a touchdown is? If readers want to know more about feudal ranks, they can go to the linked article.

And Homey is quite right: I created this article because the Canada article was getting weighed down by discussio of the name, and I wanted to add information on both supposed origins of the name, and alternatives that were considered (Tupona, Borealia, etc.) Creating a branch article was an appropriate way of handling this.

And let's be clear: moving the discussion of Canada's name from Canada to Canada's name does not mean that you get to post your own theories and research here. This is still a Wikipedia article,

When did I even say that? I never said that. Back off Ground Zero, I don't appreciate your threatening attitude.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

and must follow Wikipedia's rules, which I know cause great difficulty for you. But that's the way it is here on the world's biggest encyclopedia. Ground Zero | t 04:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, the main Canada article was getting weighted down with the Dominion of Canada issue because there are a few people like me that want to our country called by its true name. I thank you for making this page. I did not know it was you. Again, thanks.

Next up, you have clearly stated that you are not interested in quaint terms like monarchy, feudalism, and "out-of-date" terminology , this however does not exclude them from the discussion. So I shall continue along that vein-of-thought.

Lastly, yes I do think "the enlightened majority" was wrong in voting that Canada is this country's long form offical name. I believe it is the Dominion of Canada, and that is what I am going to discuss here, with all the tools that are made available. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Ground Zero: Re. Hostility, Following the Rules, and "Tricks"

Ground Zero wrote,

And let's be clear: moving the discussion of Canada's name from Canada to Canada's name does not mean that you get to post your own theories and research here. This is still a Wikipedia article, and must follow Wikipedia's rules, which I know cause great difficulty for you. But that's the way it is here on the world's biggest encyclopedia. Ground Zero | t 04:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

When did I even say that? I never said that. Back off Ground Zero, I don't appreciate your threatening attitude. ArmchairVexillologistDon 12:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero wrote,

So you made a snide remark about the "enlightened majority" instead. I guess you just can't accept that you are part of a community here, and that the community does not accept eveything you put down. Well, too bad. That is how Wikipedia works. Your inability to convince other editors of your view on various issues does not mean that they are uninformed. It means that you have been unable to convince them becuase your arguments are frequently unsubstantiated, they frequently go off on unrelated tangents, and there is too much evidence on the other side. I gave up on following most of the sources you provide because they are usually wild goose chases. There is lots of information about feudal rank in the Nobility article, to which I linked this article for your benefit. It should not be here because there is no evidence that the Fathers of Confederation and the Colonial Office had extended discussions about it. Ground Zero | t 04:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero wrote,

If we were talking about football, we would link to the appropriate terminology, not provide lengthy definitions of each term. Canyou imagine a game commentator explaining what a tackle is when one is made? Or a explaining what a touchdown is? If readers want to know more about feudal ranks, they can go to the linked article. Ground Zero | t 04:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero wrote,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:E_Pluribus_Anthony

Canada

Anthony, I encourage you to cull material out of this article. It seems to need a regular cleaning to keep it to a manageable size and as an oerview article. It seems that a lot of people want the main article to hold all the information on their pet areas of interest. A word of caution about removing "Dominion of Canada", though. There are several people who pop up every so often to insist that the official name of the country is still that. See the Talk page and archived talk pages for more. the wording that was in there seemed to trick them into thinking that we were accepting their point, although the reference to "styled Dominion of Canada" actually was in the past tense, so if you read it carefully, you'd realise that the article was not sying that it still is. We'll have to see if any of these people are still around. Good luck in your editing. Kevintoronto 21:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on your recent edits. They really help the article read better. Ground Zero 14:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (the editor formerly known as Kevintoronto)

the wording that was in there seemed to trick them into thinking that we were accepting their point,

My response:

Don wrote: "Now, this extra article (Canada's name) was created because of people (like me) who wanted the Dominion of Canada put in the first sentence of the main Canada article."

• This was the basis of my concern that you view this page as a place where you can post whatever you want about Canada's name, regardless of the views of other editors. If you are, howevber, willing to accept the decisions of the community on this page as well, then I will withdraw my comment that "moving the discussion of Canada's name from Canada to Canada's name does not mean that you get to post your own theories and research here."

Don wrote: "I don't appreciate your threatening attitude."

• Reminding you of the rules of engagement of the Wikipedia community including etiquette is not threatening. And given the disregad and contempt that you show for other editors on a regular basis, I don't think you are in a position to complain about attitudes.

Don wrote: "there are a few people like me that want to our country called by its true name.... Lastly, yes I do think "the enlightened majority" was wrong in voting that Canada is this country's long form offical name. I believe it is the Dominion of Canada, and that is what I am going to discuss here, with all the tools that are made available.

• Again, you have failed to convince other editors who have patiently read and responded to your arguments for a couple of months now. Not even the [http:www.monarchist.ca Monarchist League] or the Royal Canadian Legion use the term "Dominon of Canada" on their websites. You have been tenacious promoting your unique view on these issues, and while tenacity is to be admired in most cases, here you are taking editors away from other, more productive activities.

As far as my comments to Anthony from five months ago, I do not think that they are relevant any longer because the section of the Canada article to which they refer has been re-written dozens of times. The point that I was making was that a couple of anonymous editors kept coming back to add "Dominion of Canada" without reading or responding to any of the discussion on the talk page. A way to address that was to leave the phrase in there without adding in the incorrect (in the view of almost everyone here) and unsubstantiated assertion that that term is official. The wording that I chose was not the best: it was a sloppy short cut to explain what I have explained here. If I were writing that comment to Anthony again, I would choose my words more carefully. But again, since you regularly make personal attacks against other editors and never withdraw them when asked, you are someone who cannot credibly hold other editors to best behaviour. Ground Zero | t 14:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ground Zero,

Well that was a "mouth-full", indeed. Hmmm, so I guess what you might be implying is that you intend to treat me with comtempt, from here forward. Okkie dokkie, so noted.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not say that. I cannot control what you choose to infer. This is another example of you reading into what someone has written something that is not there. I do my best to treat other editors with respect, even when they do not respond in kind. I have occasional lapses, and when I have made a personal attack against someone, as I did against you, I have withdrawn it and apologized, as I did in that case. Ground Zero | t 15:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, look-it, for what it is worth I actually like you. When we discuss things like Flags, Coats-of-Arms, Constitutional History, I actually want to hear your opinion. I do listen to it, and consider it. Both of us have a belligerent side, that can be triggered. Your trigger is alot longer than mine. You have alot more patience than I do. I commend you for that, my lack of patience is my failing, "my Achelles-Heal".

All I am saying is that if you want to keep responding to me with continued comtempt, hey fine by me. It is not going to stop my discussion of Canada's name. By the way, I was quite offended by your comment on me "pushing my cock-eyed theories" on this Canada's name page. I am going to stick to the rules of Wikipedia, and cite everything (hence the long reference list). Anyways, after I finish my text and references, feel free to "blast-away" or ignore it. 'Tis up to you eh.

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find where I used the phrase "pushing my cock-eyed theories". It doesn't sound like a phrase that I would use, but it is possible. I just can't find it. That is not a personal attack anyway, because it was a comment about your theories, not about you. I've pointed out the numerous times you have ridiculed arguments that other editors and I have made, and you've never withdrawn or apologizd for those, so if you're looking for an apology, you're not going to get it this time.

Providing references is a good start, but not everything for which a reference is provided is appropriate for inclusion in an article. A lengthy treatise on the War of 1812 does not belong in Canada's name even if it is cited into oblivion. I will wait and see what you post.

I also encourage you to post it here on the talk page first and invite comments since your edits are often contentious. Opening a discussion would be a productive way of attempting to develop a consensus and avoiding a revert war. Ground Zero | t 16:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"the War of 1812 does not belong in Canada's name even if it is cited into oblivion" ?

Wow. Okkie dokkie. It will be "blasting away", I see. No problem, 'tis fair game. Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I've been keeping up with this topic periodically, and will comment generally (and briefly), and am surprised in how it has mushroomed.

Ground Zero and I chatted way back when about my editions to the Canada and related pages: not being a seasoned editor on Wikipedia, I made some editions before consulting and not cognizant of protocols. Ground Zero provided commentary, and no impropriety or conspiracy is afoot. My primary jist was that the Canada article (ideally a summary one at that) was getting far too long and contained too much detail; if you look at the edit history, you'll note I substantially reduced the length of the Canada article; this is now ancient history.

Similarly, I made editions to Canada's name, a subarticle where these discussions should occur. I logged an 'undecided' vote for Canada's name on the main article. I certainly believe that Canada is the official longform name. I also believe that DoC may be an official longform name or style: it is in the Constitution Act, 1871 (which partially comprises the BNA Act) and has never changed. Particularly since the Canada Act 1982, though, it is now disused for practical, linguistic, and other reasons. Moreover, issues of usage -- particularly in a Canadian constitutional context -- concern written text and unwritten conventions. Since DoC is 'in the books,' has not been repealed, and was used more frequently in the past (in written and verbal forms), it may not be wholly invalid. As well, there are references that do not wholly invalidate its usage (e.g., Eugene Forsey's "How Canadians Govern Themselves" -- though he was a staunch traditionalist -- the "Oxford Companion to Canadian History", etc.).

My point? The current edition of this article Canada's name, or at least the last section, is a modus vivendi where both positions can be reconciled and embraces varying viewpoints while still being factual (I think). Pending something more authoritative (e.g., constitutional amendment, legal opinion, word from above, act of God), I've reconciled this issue based on available information and personally; others can, too ... and diplomatically, at that.

Make sense? Thoughts? That's it for now. E Pluribus Anthony 14:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Anthony. Where I have ended up on this is that "Canada" is unamibuously official, while it is arguable that "Dominion of canada" was also official by virtue of usage. By the same token, it is no longer official because it has not been used officially for several decades. The Constitution Act, 1871 used the term, but did not say "the "Dominion of Canada" is the official name". Since it was never prescribed in a statute, it cannot be repealed by statute: any status that it had was determined by usage, and therefore its current non-status is determined by its non-usage. I don't know if I've made things clearer or not. Ground Zero | t 15:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey there; thanks for the summary and feedback. I don't dispute your position and largely agree. I think, though, that -- whether it is characterised as a name or style -- that its mere mention in the constitution makes it legitimate (and thus a matter of debate, pending authoritative commentary and foregoing all user argumentation and positioning ... present company included) even though it was not prescribed as such. Alternatively: DoC is disused, superceded by a universal (and accepted) term, but may not be wholly invalid. E Pluribus Anthony 15:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The 19 British American Colonies from (1763-1775)

British American Colonies 1763-1775

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/british_colonies_1763-76.jpg

From North to South, the 19 Colonies are listing below, (Note: The 6 Loyalist Colonies of the 19 Colonies of are denoted in red).

(1). Newfoundland,

(2). Nova Scotia (New Brunswick broke off in 1784, i.e., no included in map),

(3). Prince Edward Island (it broke off from Nova Scotia in 1770, thus in map),

(4). Quebec (in 1774 it was extended to include Northwest Territory (i.e., Ohio)),

(5). Massachusetts (includes Maine),

(6). New Hampshire,

(7). Connecticut,

(8). Rhode Island,

(9). New York,

(10). Pennsylvania,

(11). New Jersey,

(12). Virginia (it was only in 1863 that West Virigina was broken off),

(13). Maryland,

(14). Delaware Counties (later Delaware),

(15). North Carolina,

(16). South Carolina,

(17). Georgia,

(18). East Florida,

(19). West Florida.

Not including (20). the British Commerical Territory of Ruperts Land (Administered by the Hudsons Bay Company), and (21). Indian Territory.

Note: The 6 Loyalist Colonies of the 19 Colonies of are denoted in red.

I stand corrected. I was unaware of Florida's status in that era. And I forgot that P.E.I. was separated before the Amer. Rev., not after. Indefatigable 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Indefatigable,

No problem mate, I am glad that you check up on my contributions, as you always do it in a kind and respectful fashions. By the way, here is another interesting link of Canada to the USA,

(removed flags of Nova Scotia, Alabama, and Florida, not related to the discussion of the article on Canada's name.)

Interesting eh!

Take care, and best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

HOTR, don't screw with the references until I post my text

HOTR, don't screw with the references until I post my text.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

JimWae,

I don't appreciate being "told" what are footnotes, and what are sources, before I even start writting. This is too much of pain in the ass. People editing before one actually posts the text. I have re-set the sources to what they were at the beginning. I may post J.S. Ewarts narration of the development of London Conference 1866. Other than that, I think I'll take a break from here.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Take a chill-pill. They obviously were NOT footnotes & still are not. Most of what you post barely pertains to the topic --JimWae 00:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll gauges Americans’ and Canadians’ knowledge of equivalent historical facts

Poll gauges Americans’ and Canadians’ knowledge of equivalent historical facts

Fully six in ten (63%) Americans pass compared to only 39% of Canadians

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=1255

July 1, 2001 - Dominion Institute / Ipsos-Reid poll conducted for Canada Day 2001 shows Americans know their history and civics far better than Canadians.

"The results show that six in ten (63%) Americans passed the quiz (scoring 5 or more correct responses out of 10) compared to 39% of Canadians. Highlights include: 1 in 4 (26%) Canadians think Canada is a representative republic; 22% believe “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is Canada’s constitutional slogan; and fully 90% of Americans could name their first President versus 54% of Canadians who could name Canada’s first PM."

"The Dominion Institute’s founder and Executive Director, Rudyard Griffiths comments, “So much for the dumb American thesis!” Griffiths continues: “Canadians would do well to pay attention to this poll. It provides yet another indication that the strength of a nation’s identity rests on its citizens sharing a common body of factual knowledge. In a world of globalization and value change, Canada should take heed of the American example.” "

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why this is here. Talk pages are not chat rooms. Don, have you posted this to try to imply that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue are in the 61% of Canadians who would not pass the test and you are in the 39%? That would be an ad hominem attack, and not appropriate.

I think that the Dominion Institute is a fine organization that does important work. I will note that this organization that "was established in 1997 by a group of young people concerned about the erosion of a common memory in Canada" does not use the term "Dominion of Canada" to describe the country.

As far as your posting of footnotes to text that you have not posted, we have been waiting patiently for a few days now, and nothing has appeared. I urge you to prepare the whole text and post it on the talk page for comment, rather than adding in bits and pieces of a work in progress. Wikipedia articles should not be treated as drafts. Ground Zero | t 13:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero,

(1). I stumbled across this article by accident.

(2). This article catelogues the general lack of historical knowledge of Canadians.

(3). This article does not identify anyone here at Wikipedia.

(4). I know this page is not a chat-room, nor a place for original research.

(5). I have reset the Sources on the Canada's Name article page.

(6). The "days" that people "waited" were about 1 day, and 6 hours (check time-stamps).

I am typing out J.S. Ewarts Narration of the London Conference of Dec 4. 1866 to March 29, 1867. As well I am typing out a Letter by Sir John. A. MacDonald regarding the change from "Kingdom" to "Dominion" at the London Conference. J.S. Ewarts narration(pp.381-385), and the said letter(pp.384-385), were published in J.S. Ewarts Second Volume of the Kingdom Papers, and Sir John A's letter was provided to Mr. Ewart by Sir John Pope. Sir John Pope also published Sir John A. MacDonald's letter in the Ottawa Citizen, July 26, 1917. I am sure our resident Librarian-Layman SimonP (or rather P. Simon) could double-check the newpapers reference.

I will type the text out (faithfully, and completely) and post it here in the talkpage of Canada's name. You folks can do with it what you will.

Editing here with "you people" is very tiresome, to say the least.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero posted,

So it is an article about Canadians' lack of knowledge about their history. What is it doing here on a talk page about Canada's name? If there is no reason for it, I'm sure you won't mind if I remove it. Ground Zero | t 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast Ground Zero. I do object if you summarily remove this part. This is relavent to the discussion at hand, and you are being biased and heavy-handed if your delete it. This is a talkpage, as you keep reminding me of. We are here to talk about relavent items to the main article. Are you saying that what is relavent is solely determined by you? ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero posted,

You can be sure that the rest of us feel the same way about dealing with you as you do about us. Ground Zero | t 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of "speaking for an un-named group" you could speak for yourself. Since you have broached the subject, then I will ask ... "how do you find dealing with me?" ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero posted,

I return to a question I posted earlier, does that mean that all the other editors here are difficult to deal with, or that maybe you are the one who is difficult to deal with? Ground Zero | t 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Unlike some of "your ilk", I don't dodge direct questions. If you look at Point (2), and Point (3), that I posted above then the answer is clear. No, I do not specifically hold anyone here as difficult to deal with. The one person that I personally find impossible of deal with is HOTR. But as I shall re-state, that is a result of (what I believe are) the personality differences between him and I.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"This is relavent to the discussion at hand". I posted the above comment to ask how it is relevant before I removed it in order to provide you (and anyone else) an opportunity to comment, spefically saying "If no-one objects". Ummm... how is this heavy-handed? It was a clear and unambiguous effort to generate a discussion. If I had gone ahead and changed this page without discussing, as you have so often done to the article, it would be different.

More importantly, you have still not explained how it is relevant. If there is a connection, please let us know what it is. If not, then let's remove it.

Points 3 and 4 do not answer my question. You are dodging the direct question. You may not "hold anyone here" as being difficult to deal with, but you did write: "Editing here with "you people" is very tiresome, to say the least." So let me rephrase the above comment: Does that mean that all the other editors here are tiresome to deal with, or that maybe you are the one who is tiresome to deal with?

Several editors here have posted comments about your behaviour here, and you have been banned for short periods, and there was an RfA related to your behaviour. So I'm not alone in being frustrated by you. Ground Zero | t 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, as per your re-stated question,

Does that mean that all the other editors here are tiresome to deal with, or that maybe you are the one who is tiresome to deal with?

Talk about a loaded question. Fine. I preceive there are quite a few editors here that find me rude, and hard to deal with. I suspect that you are one of those number. Some for a point of view that the majority is always correct, then yes I am the problem. Happy now eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

An Internet Reference for "Feudal Ranks of Country's Names"

"Miltary Ranks

http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm (Please read the bottom of the webpage).

• This is the link that I provided above much ealier in this debate. Ground Zero | t 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What? When. The only link that I ever say was this ... "feudal rank". It lead to a Wikipedia page dominated by medievial French Nobility. Are you saying that originally it lead to the reference quoted above that I only found last night? If so then someone altered the link from the (Fresian) Feudal Rank page, "known as Miltary Ranks", to the Wikipedia page on French Nobility.

Look-it, if I had found this earlier, I most certainly would of posted this, if only for the purpose of having HOTR shut-up.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This "Internet Reference" is consistent with my much deleted(and perhaps detested) contribution on the Dominion of Canada name, and its Feudal Rank. Incidently, if ones looks up the Quebec Resolutions 1864 (there are 72), and the following London Resolutions 1866 (there are 69), one will note,

Rank and Name.--71.That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces.

then,

Rank and Name.--68. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Confederation.

Federatied Provinces of Canada (1864), then the Confederation of Canada (1866).

The Fathers of Confederation met at the Quebec Conference of 1864, to discuss the terms of this new union. One issue on the agenda was to determine the Union's feudal rank. In the feudal ranking system, an Empire, a Kingdom, a Principality, a Duchy, a March, an Earldom, a County, and an Estate are ruled by an Emperor, a King, a Prince, a Duke, a Marquis, an Earl, a Count (Viscount), and a Baron, respectively. The feudal rank of a Kingdom, Realm, Union, and Dominion are the same. The English words translate into the French words Royaume, Realme, Union, and Dominion, respectively. Thus, the candidates for the name of this new Union were as follows, "the Kingdom of Canada" (le Royaume du Canada), "the Realm of Canada" (le Realme du Canada), "the Union of Canada" (l'Union du Canada), and "the Dominion of Canada" (le Dominion du Canada).

The Latin word Regalis is the root of the adjectival form English word "king", "regal", and the French word Realme. The lands that a king (or sovereign) has the authority to rule over can be termed as a Kingdom, a Realm, or a Dominion, incorporating the Latin word Dominus (and its short form Dom).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Canada's name: sources

Hi there! I have taken the liberty to do a little digging and provided some wholly relevant sources for content in Canada's_name#Sources. I would hope that the article and appropriate parties use this information to inform debate and enhance this article. I think they also support a balanced -- if ambiguous -- position. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 16:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello E. Pluribus Anthony,

Thank you very much for the contribution of the references to Canada's Name in the Sources section. I appreciate them very much. They are an interesting read, and add alot of food-for-thought to this issue. Thanks again for contributing them. Indeed.

Take care, and best wishes,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem! E Pluribus Anthony 17:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks. there are two passages from the documents that you posted that I think are relevant:

From the 1993 Eugene Forsey Memorial Lecture, A Lament for British North America, by Robert Martin, professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario:

The word ["dominion"] is found, appropriately enough, in the original British North America Act. The Preamble speaks of "One Dominion under the Crown", while section 3 provides for the creation of "One Dominion under the Name of Canada". Strictly speaking, the official name of the new country was, simply, "Canada", but usage sanctioned "Dominion of Canada". [26]

This is my argument: "Dominion of Canada" was used. It is no longer. The various governments of Canada do not use it, and organizations that exist to celebrate our history and heritage (the Dominion Institute and the Royal Canadian Legion) and our connection to the monarchy (the Monarchist League of Canada) do not use it. So far, the only people we have found using it are a rifle club that does not seem to have got around to updating its name, and a couple of editors here.

From How We Govern Ourselves by Eugene Forsey:

The two small points on which our constitution is not entirely homemade are, first, the legal title of our country, “Dominion,” and, second, the provisions for breaking a deadlock between the Senate and the House of Commons. (p. 8)

Forsey then proceed to discuss only the second point. The "legal title" to which he refers is that of "Dominion", but he does not say that the official name of the country is "Dominion of canada", and he never uses the term "Dominion of Canada" (unless I've overlooked something).

To summarize, the usage of "Dominion of Canada" was never prescribed in statute, and therefore cannot be repealed. To the extent that it had any status determined by usage, that status no longer exists because it long ago fell into disuse. (Martin refers to the federal government ceasing to use it in the 1930s -- in other words, it has now been obsolete for longer than it was used in the first place. ) Ground Zero | t 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your analysis. I agree with it, largely. The usage is prescribed -- 'sanctioned' -- in statute (though indirectly) by simply being there: it is noted in the Constitution Act, 1871, et al. The term is disused and that is indisputable. Is the term invalid, though? I don't think so. (I think this is consistent with my prior/current position.) Even given its obsolescence, it does not obviate or invalidate usage of the term: past or present, legally or civilly. The Oxford reference I cited describes this as something that would need to be repealed (though I need to clarify this). As for other 'pertinent' current usage (in addition to everything cited): there is a legal reference text listed at the Privy Council Office site entitled Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada (4th ed.), and there is a position still on the books called Dominion Carillonneur. Moreover, I'm unsure if Forsey et al. used the term additionally (I'd imagine so, since he was a staunch traditionalist.)

My point is this: given this information (which was enlightening for me), I think the official longform name is dually Canada and Dominion of Canada, though the latter is disused and inconsistent with current zeitgeist. I think the information provided in the Canada's_name#Usage of Canada/Dominion of Canada section and how it is currently framed is valid in describing this issue. Alternatively: I am trying to provide information here and there without necessarily interpreting it, as others may. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 19:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Anthony, I did not see your lucid and well-researched analysis amidst Don's -- I don't know what to call it. Ground Zero | t 20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, please refer to the section below (the Names Changes of the Netherlands). There you will see the evolution of long form offical name of the Netherlands, over a period of history. As per what you term my research as, well I really don't care. You can be as nasty as you want.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there is an important difference between prescribed and sanctioned. DofC is sanctioned by the BNA Act 1871 by its use. That Act, however, does not say, "The official name of this country is the Dominion of Act". That would make it prescribed. I have never argued that the use of the term is invalid. Canada is a dominion, and the BNA Act 1867 says so, so calling it the "Dominion of Canada" cannot be incorrect, and having a position of "Dominion Carilloneur" or DofC in the title of Bourinot's (what is the date on that, by the way?) is not problematic. But the question we are struggling with is, what is the official name?

I would agree with you that by usage "Canada" and "DofC" were longform names in official use. The question is if they both still are. I don't think you have provided enough of the "Oxford reference" to make your point that official use of DofC would have to be repealed clear. Could you explain that a bit more, please? Many thanks. Ground Zero | t 20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks again for your summary and explanation. Yes, Bourinot is from way back when (4th ed., 1916), but is a technical legal text (on parliamentary process) still used.

I glanced at the Oxford reference while out; it is ... interesting in an odd way: it essentially asserts that 'dominion' is an official title no longer in common use but requiring a constitutional amendment to change it. I'll post it once I copy it as soon as I can.

To that end, I contend that the official longform name is unquestionably Canada or that there isn't one, only a short one. As well, it might be Dominion of Canada (as I previously noted) given the ambiguity of its status and prior usage, but the latter is likely more an official stylised name ... and disused. I'm not disputing contentions either way, but the evidence presented throughout has been varied and I'm loathe to unequivocally decide based on incomplete information (as others may or may not).

I would also request or caution limiting changes to the Canada's_name#Usage_of_Canada/Dominion_of_Canada until I cite the reference (though understand this may be unworkable) to ensure that users cannot assert this or that without providing sources: I don't deny the majority opinion or the current ... zeitgeist (see numerous prior posts), but pro and con assertions/interpretations must be referenced (and have not by others). After all: we are trying to improve and source the article and provide information to visitors, not make judgements. Even though removal of "earlier usage" is implicit -- and purposely vague (which I may change back, as it addresses legal and civil use, prior and current) -- I am generally satisfied with the current version of the Canada's_name#Usage_of_Canada/Dominion_of_Canada section.

And I think you are not qualified to determine what is prescribed ... for me, that is. ;) (Are you?) Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 03:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero,

Correct me if I am wrong, but you support the position that the offical name of the portion of the Island of Ireland that is currently not apart of the United Kingdom as having an offical name "Ireland", and not the Republic of Ireland.

You acknowledge the interpretation of the Irish Parliament (the Dail) that the term the Republic of Ireland is a description, but not an offical name. Historically,

(1). the Lordship of Ireland(1171-1543),

(2). the Kingdom of Ireland (1543-1801),

(3). absorbed into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921),

(4). partitioned (Dec. 21, 1921) in the Irish Free State, and the Province of Northern Ireland (which remained apart of the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

Now, the Irish Free State (1921-1937) formal passed a Constitutional Amendment in 1937 that offical re-named the Irish Free State as Eire (Irish Celtic for Ireland). Then in 1949, the Irish Parliament (the Dail) passed the Republic of Ireland Act 1949, but it did not change the Constitution clause that stated the offical name of the country was Eire.

The Correct Name for Ireland

http://alt-usage-english.org/ireland.html

Now, the Republican Irish have come with this convoluted position that the offical name is Eire, but the description of the country is the Republic of Ireland. This is ridiculous. And typically Republican Irish.

The Republic of Ireland is the offical name. To agree that is not is "hair-splitting". To offically resolve the issue the Republican Irish have two mechanisms

(i). a referendum,

(ii). a referal to the Irish Supreme Court.

The gutless Republican Irish have done neither.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Okayyy... I was talking about the name of Canada, so I'm not going to be sidetracked by your bigoted rant about another country. The additional sources provided by Anthony state explicitly that the official name is Canada (Martin) or are silent on the issue (Forsey). Ground Zero | t 19:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero,

I am not trying to sidetrack you. I am illustrating that the name of the portion of the Island of Ireland that is currently not apart of the UK, and the name of former Colonies collectively known as British North America are based on the very same set of arguements.

Even the CIA recognises that countries have a longform offical name, and a short form local name.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html

longform offical name:

shortform name: Eire (in English Ireland).

longform offical name:

shortform name: Canada

What the longform offical name's are though, is what is in dispute here.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Even the CIA recognises that countries have a longform offical name, and a short form local name."

It seems clear that the CIA is saying the opposite: according the CIA, Canada and Ireland do not have official long names. That field was left empty. We've been through the arguments about Ireland's name before, and even if it has an official long name that is different from its short name, that does not mean Canada has to have one. There is no world body that sets rules for naming that it can enforce on countries that don't follow the rules. And Professor Martin, as cited above, explicitly states that "Canada" is the official name. Ground Zero | t 20:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the CIA had entered the word "none". This could be interpreted that the longform offical name is,

(1). non-existant, never made,

(2). no longform offical name was submitted by the Government in question,

(3). the short form and the longform offical name as the same.

Well. We could argue about which of the 'three possibilities that it is, but I simply don't have the energy to get into that one.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The Name Changes of the Netherlands

The local name is "the Netherlands". The English have another local name called "Holland" (there are two Provinces in the Netherlands called North Holland, and South Holland). Anyways, over time this country has been called by the following names,

(pre-1581) The Province of the Spanish Netherlands, (a Province of the Kingdom of Spain),

(1581-1814) The United Provinces of the Netherlands, (an Independent Republic),

(1814-1831) The Kingdom of the United Netherlands, (an Independent Kingdom),

(post-1831) The Kingdom of the Netherlands, (an Independent Kingdom, minus the Belgium Territory).

So today, in the CIA Factbook database, it should read the following,

longform offical name: the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

shortform name: the Netherlands.

and "low and behold",

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html

it does say those very two things. Indeed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop posting irrelevent material to the talk pages. Homey 00:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No. Quite on the contrary, the evolution of the long form offical name of the Netherlands is very relavent. I provides a complete illustration of the spectrum of Feudal Ranks and Long Form Names. So that makes it very relavent, and helpful to this discussion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Relavent Countries to North America: A comparasion of longform offical versus short fofm, NAMES

Comment: If you're going to do this, use a table. E Pluribus Anthony 20:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sure thing. I will use a table. I have not used a table before in Wikipedia, so I'll have to read up on how to do that first. Thanks again for listening to my arguements, and thank you for making the suggestion to use a table.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

longform offical name:

shortform name:

longform offical name:

shortform name:

longform offical name:

shortform name:

Zeitgeist

I am not familar with this word, or its connotations. But I have found this.

http://www.newalbion.com/artists/zeitgeist/

It this interpretation correct? (i.e., "the Spirit of the Age"). If so, does that mean that the spirit of the age is remove all reference to our British Commonwealth Heritage? If so does that mean that Canada wants to become a Republic? (i.e., the Republic of Canada).

Take care, and best wishes,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is an online dictionary. My usage of the word is meant to imply the current situation regarding 'dominion'. No republican inferences are implied or intended. E Pluribus Anthony 20:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello E. Pluribus Anthony,

Oh, ok. Thanks for pointing out that the German word Zeitgeist is referenced on the on-line dictionary.

Zeitgeist

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zeitgeist

I honestly had not heard of that word before, and I assumed becuase it was German that ole "dictionary.com" would not cover it. I should of checked, I apologise.

If I may ask what do you think "the spirit of the age" means with regards to only using "Canada" as this country's offical name? I honestly would be very interested in hearing your thoughts/opinions on this.

Thanks again eh,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help. As well, my position -- which is not immutable -- is cited above. To address this directly to me or for further discussions, use my Talk page if you wish. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 20:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Okkie dokkie,

Ok, thanks alot from the Sources, and the comments here. I appreciate them alot.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom Papers Volume II, Pages 381-384

J.S. Ewarts narration of the London Conference Dec. 4, 1866, to March 29, 1867.

Kingdoms Papers Volume II (pp. 381-384).

Notes:

(1). the text below is reproduced verbatum (i.e., exactly as written),

(2). since J.S. Ewart is directly cited, this is not plagarism,

(3). the [Square Bracketed Text] denotes my own note, and is not Ewarts,

(4). the Bold Text denotes the large typeface used by Ewart,

(5). the Italisized Text denotes the exact text italisized by Ewart,

(6). the Blue Text, denotes the draft constitution text, and the final text appearing in the British North America Act 1867 (the last two blue coloured texts).

Delegates in London.—The next scene opened in London, where the delegates from the three provinces assembled “for the purposes of arranging the terms of the Union”. After discussions lasting from the 4th to the 26th December, 1866, the delegates agree to a series of sixty-nine resolutions. Three of these are the same as the three above quoted from the resolutions of the Quebec Conference [Note: this last sentence refers to something up the page that is not quoted in the typed out text, here. I included this last sentence for completeness].

Delegates First Draft.—The Conference then proceeded to draft a bill. Its noticeable features (for present purposes) are those of the clauses quoted. [Note: the numbers of the resolutions quoted in the next sentence refer to the 1864 Quebec Resolutions (there are72), and not the 1866 London Resolutions (there are 69)]. No. 3 (as to following “the model of the British constitution”) was omitted; No. 4 was repeated; the words “saving the sovereignty of England” were omitted in No. 29; and No. 71 (as to rank and name) was provided for by leaving blanks to be filled in afterwards.

Law Officers.—Meanwhile, the Imperial law officers were also engaged in drafting a bill. Its language will give some idea of what Sir John and other delegates had to struggle with. It recited:

"Whereas the Union of the British North America Colonies for the Purposes of Government and Legislation would attended with great Benefits to the Colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom".

and it proceeded to declare that

"the said Three Colonies shall be composed of" "The United Colony of shall be composed," etc, "There shall be a Governor-General for the United Colony," etc, "For each Province there shall be an Officer, styled the Superintendant," etc,

Delegates Second Draft.—The delegates produced a second draft. It is dated 2 February, 1867. The law officer’s draft had provided that

"the said Three Colonies shall be thenceforth form and be One Colony,"

Instead of that, the delegates draft provided that,

"the said Provinces ... shall form and be one united dominion under the name of the Kingdom of Canada, and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute, and be One Kingdom under the name aforesaid..."

That was the suggestion of the delegates as Canada’s "rank and name"; and we may assume that all the delegates agree to it. Further, the draft of the law officers had provided

"Their shall be for the United Colony Two Houses of Parliament styled the Legislative Council and the House of Commons"

whereas the delegates draft provided that

"From and after the Union, there shall be within and for the Kingdom of Canada, one General Parliament, which shall be composed of the Queen, an Upper Chamber, to be called the Senate and the House of Commons"

The law officers had provided for the constitution an Executive Council. The draft of the delegates added the words:

"which shall be called the Privy Council of Canada"

Delegates Third Draft.—Between the 2nd and the 9th of February, the delegates prepared their third draft bill. In it they made further use of the phrase "the Kingdom of Canada." For example:

"The word 'Parliament' shall mean the Legislature or Parliament of the Kingdom of Canada"

The following clauses were new:

"The word 'Kingdom' shall mean and comprehend the United Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. The word 'Privy Council' shall such persons as may from time to time be appointed by the Governor-General, and sworn to aid and advise the Government of the Kingdom. The word 'Canada' (when not applied to the Province of Canada) shall mean the Kingdom of Canada thereby constituted."

Joint Draft.—The next draft (9th February) is the joint product of the delegates and the English law officers. Prior to its preparation Sir John had made his last fight for the elevation of this country out of colonialism, and had fallen back beaten. The words

"shall form and be one united dominion under the name of the Kingdom of Canada, and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute, and be One Kingdom under the name aforesaid"

were supplanted by the language which now appears in the constitution:

"shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada, and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly"

Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft. The recital was made to declare which that was untrue—

"WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom"

[End of this section of the cited text from the J.S. Ewart work].

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Central Arguement of this Whole Issue

If ones looks up the Quebec Resolutions 1864 (there are 72), and the following London Resolutions 1866 (there are 69), one will note,

Rank and Name.--71.That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces.

then,

Rank and Name.--68. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Confederation.

Federated Provinces of Canada (1864), then the Confederation of Canada (1866).

The words

"shall form and be [one united dominion] under the name of [the Kingdom of Canada], and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute, and be [One Kingdom] under the name aforesaid"

were supplanted by the language which now appears in the constitution:

"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"

Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.

In the last draft of the delegates ,

Rank = [one united dominion], and Name = [the Kingdom of Canada],

whereas in the final draft entered in the constitution (i.e., the British North America Act 1867),

Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [Canada].

So the question is

does Name = long form offical name = [the Kingdom of Canada], in the last delegate draft,

whereas,

does Name = short form name = [Canada], which entered the British North America Act 1867.

If so, then "Canada" has no long form offical name, but only a short form name. Such a conclusion seems to be what happenned. The thing is, if this country was assigned in 1867, only the short form name of Canada, that would of been a complete break with the tradition of the time (the late 1800s). Equally, if this country was in fact assigned in 1867, the long form offical name of Canada, that again would of been a complete break with tradition of the time (the late 1800s).

Finally, an explicit solution to the above ambiguity would of been this text, proposed below,

Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [the Dominion of Canada].

in other words,

"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [the Dominion of Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"

If only this proposed text had been put into the British North America Act, 1867, then this whole ambiguity would of been obliterated. Alas.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"that would of been a complete break with the tradition of the times"

Canada was the first British colony to achieve any sort of independence outside of war - you would have a point if Austalia, New Zealand or even one other colony had gone first but as Canada was the first there simply was not a tradition to follow. Homey 16:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that the British North America Act 1867 defines "the short form" name of Canada only

After "sleeping on it", I have come to the opinion that it would seem that the British North America Act 1867 defines "the short form" name of "Canada" only, for this country.

The words

"shall form and be [one united dominion] under the name of [the Kingdom of Canada], and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute, and be [One Kingdom] under the name aforesaid"

were supplanted by the language which now appears in the constitution:

"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"

Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.

Since the explicit text (shown below) was not used,

"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [the Dominion of Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"

I am forced to conclude that

(1). Delegate Draft (Feb. 9, 1867): Name = long form name

Rank = [one united dominion], and Name = [the Kingdom of Canada],

(2). Final Draft put in BNA Act (Feb. 9, 1867): Name = short form name

Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [Canada].

(3). Un-used Explicit Text (Proposed by me): Name = long form name

Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [the Dominion of Canada].

the British North America Act 1867, only defined the short form name of "Canada", for this country. Therefore the long form offical name of this country was left UNDEFINED (on July 1, 1867).

Dammit. (Sad-faced Don)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you are able to admit you were wrong. Still, you've uncovered some interesting evidence about Canada's proposed title of Kingdom and how it was lost.Homey 16:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Don, thank you for continuning your research and analysis even though it led you to a conclusion that you were not seeking. I understand that this was not easy for you. Go out and have a nice walk to cheer yourself up. The sun is shining. Please don't be sad. Ground Zero | t 18:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Very nicely done, Don. Good work.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Canada's name: sources — the revenge

Hello ... tada! As promised, please find below the citation for the entry entitled 'dominion' on p. 183 in the Oxford Companion to Canadian History, edited by Gerald Hallowell (2004) (asterisks indicate references to other entries in the companion and, here, to relevant articles in Wikipedia):

dominion The title conferred on Canada by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, whereby the provinces declare 'their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom'. The title was chosen over the founding fathers' preference for 'Kingdom', allegedly to mollify Canada's republican neighbour but still represent the founding monarchical principle. Beginning in the 1950s, as an affirmation of independent status and to make a break with the colonial past, a homegrown *governor general was appointed, a *national flag adopted, and 'dominion' gradually dropped from official and popular usage. Despite the anguished protests of monarchists such as Eugene *Forsey, who saw dominion as 'the only distinctive word we have contributed to political terminology' and one 'borrowed throughout the Commonwealth', the final nail was driven by the 1982 statute changing the holiday commemorating Confederation from Dominion Day to Canada Day. Ironically, defenders of the title dominion who see signs of creeping republicanism in such changes can take comfort in the knowledge that the Constitution Act, 1982, retains the title and requires a constitutional amendment to alter it. — J. E. Hodgetts

There you go! I hope this sheds some more authoritative light on this topic. Thanks for your patience. E Pluribus Anthony 17:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This contradicts what Robert Martin, professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario, has to say on the topic. Who is J. E. Hodgetts? Is he an authority, or just a writer? Ground Zero | t 18:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I know! That's why I thought it interesting in an odd sorta way. I'm unsure if he is an authority; he is listed as a Professor Emeritus (of Political Science) at U. of T. and contributed a dozen entries in the Companion. E Pluribus Anthony 18:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! Based on recent citations/information and ongoing, tumultuous (but no less fruitful!) discussions, I -- but not alone -- have made some editions to the section/article. I think it's accurate, summative, and reasonable. Whatyathink? If agreed, I think that's it on this topic for now. As well, I'll remove the 'clean-up' moniker atop the page. Thanks to you all for your diligence and co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 05:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

(Actually, one more question: should any statement be included to indicate what, if any, official longform name there is, if applicable? Canada? Dominion of Canada? Undefined? Both? Neither? One sentence would suffice, if at all.) E Pluribus Anthony 11:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This term, "styled as" has been batted around alot. It is "high sounding Constitutional Legalise, but in plain English,... "Styled As" in laymans terms means "un-offical Longform Name".

Why am I making this distinction? Well, because it needs emphasis the maintain clarity in is (tempestous but yes fruitfull) Constitutional Debate. Constitutional Protocol usually involves a clear an explicit declaration (i.e., definiton) of the longform name of the country in question. With this clear declaration of the long form name, this thereafter is refered to as the long form offical name, or the offical long form name, or the offical name of the country. However, if one uses the third term, (i.e., the offical name), this abbrevation is dangerous, as it can introduce ambiguity into the document, or written conservation, or spoken conversation. What does the offical name mean? It assumes a long form offical name as been adopted in Statute (i.e., the Legislative Act of Parliament.).

Hi! Thanks for the information and your summary. I fielded the question to solicit opinion about whether any other statements are needed, if at all. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 18:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello E. Pluribus Anthony,

It is nice to hear from you indeed. Thanks a million for the above reference. I appreciate it alot. It adds alot to this debate indeed.

As per Section II.-Union, Clause 3., and Section II.-Union, Clause 4. of the British North America Act 1867 (and the relavent contents of which still appear in the Canada Act 1982), the short form name of "Canada" is offically adopted, and the (Feudal Rank) the title of this country is explicitly defined as a Dominion. That is what this country was founded as, and that is what it remain today ... A DOMINION.

The Constitution Act, 1867

(THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867)

30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3.

Consolidated with amendments]

An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith.

(29th March, 1867.)

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html

II. UNION.

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [Canada]; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly.(4)

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name [Canada] shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5),

Now remembering that,

"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"

the final Draft put in BNA Act (Feb. 9, 1867): Name = short form name

Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [Canada].

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi; thanks again for the information and input! I think that's it for now. Over and out! :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello E. Pluribus Anthony,

LOL!!!!! Don't worry I am not going to start up "my cantankerous philibuster" again.

Basically, the common Constitutional Protocol is to clearly define a long form offical name in the country's constitution. After that short form names are "un-offically" derived form the long form offical name.

For the sake of arguement suppose this country had explicitly adopted the Dominion of Canada in the BNA Act 1867. On comparasion with the USA, Canada would of looked like this below,

USA

long form offical name: the United States of America,

short form name: America, the United States, the States.

Canada

long form offical name: the Dominion of Canada,

short form name: Canada, the Dominion.

but we didnt' so we are stuck with this,

long form offical name:

short form name: Canada.

which constitutes a complete break with tradition. Something happenned on February 9th, 1867 in the damn Colonial Office, that screwed this up.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand fully; thanks. Au revoir! E Pluribus Anthony 19:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)